RE: [registrars] Motion on Travel Funding

["Adrian Kinderis" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think Bruce makes a good point about the utility of "face to face"
meetings.

Bruce, just to be clear, are you saying that perhaps funding should only
go to specific areas or activities (like the newTLD workshops)? This is
interesting? Who would have the authority to determine what is an
appropriate activity?

I am not saying I am against it just after further information.

Adrian Kinderis
Managing Director
AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
Level 8, 10 Queens Road
Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
Email: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com

The information contained in this communication is intended for the
named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain
legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an
intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action
in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error,
please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2007 11:16 AM
To: Registrars Constituency
Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion on Travel Funding


Hello Ross,

I am not comfortable with a blanket rejection.

Personally I found the support ICANN gave to have some face-to-face
meetings separate from the normal physical ICANN meetings to discuss
some of the details of the new gTLD policy to be very useful.   They
were typical 2.5 days of fairly intense work, which is not easy to
duplicate via online mechanisms.   These were important to build some
level of teamwork to attempt to reach consensus rather than the usual
adversarial approach that is prevalent within the GNSO.   Of course such
funding should only be for policy activities that are deemed
strategically important to ICANN and in the strategic plan - rather than
more reactive policy work (e.g add-grace period adjustments), or
refinements to existing policy (e.g transfers).

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin